Lyev
18th May 2010, 10:30
Is this a fair definition for someone not familar with any works of Marx, or in fact any socialist theorist? I feel it is limited somewhat by its brevity, but it's only a Facebook discussion with some goddamn liberals. Anyway, here's the post I made before hand, in reference to anarchist Catalonia:
Anarchists and communists believe in democracy too. In anarchist Catalonia "decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy." Seems fairly democratic to me.And the comment afterwards, on what "government" and the state is. I might have got parts wrong. I know anarchists can be very picky with semantics.
I don't like the conclusion of: "every system is flawed, so let's just be satisfied with capitalism". That seems like a somewhat superficial analysis. And as regards "government"; yes that is a form of "government", but there's no class system and there's not a ruling class that has a hegemonic control over the means of production. This is a "government" where the majority of society has common ownership, rather than exclusive ownership--private property has been abolished. However, this isn't a "government" with "armed bodies of men" (i.e. police, armed forces etc.) as Lenin called them, that are put in place, for the most part, to protect bourgeois class interests.Anyway, thanks for taking a quick look comrades.
Quick note: when I said "yes that is a form of 'government', but there's no class system...", I was referring to my last comment on a stateless, classless society; workers councils are still a type of administration, but they're not traditional government, in the bourgeois sense. That's not government how it's been done for the past 300 to 200 years or so.
Anarchists and communists believe in democracy too. In anarchist Catalonia "decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy." Seems fairly democratic to me.And the comment afterwards, on what "government" and the state is. I might have got parts wrong. I know anarchists can be very picky with semantics.
I don't like the conclusion of: "every system is flawed, so let's just be satisfied with capitalism". That seems like a somewhat superficial analysis. And as regards "government"; yes that is a form of "government", but there's no class system and there's not a ruling class that has a hegemonic control over the means of production. This is a "government" where the majority of society has common ownership, rather than exclusive ownership--private property has been abolished. However, this isn't a "government" with "armed bodies of men" (i.e. police, armed forces etc.) as Lenin called them, that are put in place, for the most part, to protect bourgeois class interests.Anyway, thanks for taking a quick look comrades.
Quick note: when I said "yes that is a form of 'government', but there's no class system...", I was referring to my last comment on a stateless, classless society; workers councils are still a type of administration, but they're not traditional government, in the bourgeois sense. That's not government how it's been done for the past 300 to 200 years or so.